If you grow up in a traditional Buddhist community, there's more of a clearly defined set method for being Buddhist, and how to integrate Buddhism into one's life.
If you grow up in a non-Buddhist community, you have to find your own way to a greater degree and its unsurprising that people who have no standardised roadmap within their local community, will come up with diverse ways of applying Buddhism in their own lives. That's neither inherently good nor bad... it simply means there's not much in the way of convention to defer to.
We see these differences even in our interactions on Buddhist forums.
Western Theravada is certainly not homogenous, but neither should it be portrayed as two diametrically opposed approaches.
"Having understood name-and-form, which is a product of prolificity,
And which is the root of all malady within and without,
He is released from bondage to the root of all maladies,
That Such-like-one is truly known as 'the one who has understood'." (Snp 3.6)
"Whether I were to preach in brief, Sāriputta, or whether I were to preach in detail, Sāriputta, or whether I were to preach both in brief or in detail, Sāriputta, rare are those who understand." (A I 333, Sāriputtasutta)